Monday, January 29, 2007

previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)


Remembering Milton Friedman

Only 20 minutes left for Milton Friedman day, so here are a few salient links:

1) At Open U., Richard Stern reports on the memorial service at the University of Chicago:

2) Paul Krugman offers his take on Friedman in the New York Review of Books:

[A]lthough this essay argues that Friedman was wrong on some issues, and sometimes seemed less than honest with his readers, I regard him as a great economist and a great man.

Milton Friedman played three roles in the intellectual life of the twentieth century. There was Friedman the economist's economist, who wrote technical, more or less apolitical analyses of consumer behavior and inflation. There was Friedman the policy entrepreneur, who spent decades campaigning on behalf of the policy known as monetarism—finally seeing the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England adopt his doctrine at the end of the 1970s, only to abandon it as unworkable a few years later. Finally, there was Friedman the ideologue, the great popularizer of free-market doctrine.

Did the same man play all these roles? Yes and no. All three roles were informed by Friedman's faith in the classical verities of free-market economics. Moreover, Friedman's effectiveness as a popularizer and propagandist rested in part on his well-deserved reputation as a profound economic theorist. But there's an important difference between the rigor of his work as a professional economist and the looser, sometimes questionable logic of his pronouncements as a public intellectual. While Friedman's theoretical work is universally admired by professional economists, there's much more ambivalence about his policy pronouncements and especially his popularizing. And it must be said that there were some serious questions about his intellectual honesty when he was speaking to the mass public.

It should be pointed out that Krugman has also played all three roles in his career -- I'll be intrigued to see whether he gets accused of similar flaws down the road.

3) Virginia Postrel has a nice round-up of links.

4) The Economist's Free Exchange offers an assessment of how far Friedman pushed policymakers:

And though he may not have achieved the low-government paradise he sought, he wrought a crucial change in the way that we expect government to serve us. Before Milton Friedman, progressives pursuing an idealised version of technocratic government bureaucrats running a vast government apparatus that would take over more and more of the functions of the economy. Milton Friedman's revolutionary idea was that, to the extent that government should help people, it should do so by giving them money, and the freedom to choose what was best for them. America's Earned Income Tax Credit, which has proven wildly successful at helping the poor into the workforce, is the most prominent programme along these lines, but by no means the only one.

posted by Dan on 01.29.07 at 06:51 PM




Comments:

Krugman tries to make a case that Friedman was "dishonest" in some of his public pronouncements, particularly about the causes of the Depression. Yet he distorts the plain meaning of Friedman's words to make the point:

"By 1976 Friedman was telling readers of Newsweek that 'the elementary truth is that the Great Depression was produced by government mismanagement,' a statement that his readers surely took to mean that the Depression wouldn't have happened if only the government had kept out of the way—when in fact what Friedman and Schwartz claimed was that the government should have been more active, not less."

To say, as Friedman did, that the depression was caused by government mismanagement is not to suggest, as Krugman would interpret these words, that the government should have kept out of the way. Rather, the words mean that the government should have managed things better (Friedman believed in particular that the Fed's failure to prevent early bank closings was the principal reason the Depression was so disastrous.)

If you take Krugman's logic seriously, then it is apparent that those who say government mismanagement of Katrina caused a lot of suffering are in fact arguing that the government should have kept out of the way. Yeah, Paul, that's what they mean....

posted by: JohnF on 01.29.07 at 06:51 PM [permalink]



Krugman isn't worthy to erase Friedman's blackboard.

posted by: john perulfi on 01.29.07 at 06:51 PM [permalink]



While [Krugman]'s theoretical work is universally admired by professional economists, there's much more ambivalence about his policy pronouncements and especially his popularizing. And it must be said that there were some serious questions about his intellectual honesty when he was speaking to the mass public.

Yep, the replacement works.

posted by: TW Andrews on 01.29.07 at 06:51 PM [permalink]






Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:




Comments:


Remember your info?